Throwing the Dice on a Veep Pick

Geography, demographics, ideology, talent, and rectitude play a role—and so do political circumstances.

Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin
AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
May 16, 2016, 8 p.m.

When people dis­cuss vice pres­id­en­tial run­ning mates, I’m al­ways sur­prised that they tend to get fix­ated on one factor to the ex­clu­sion of everything else. The truth is that there are a lot of con­sid­er­a­tions in se­lect­ing a run­ning mate. Among them are geo­graphy, demo­graph­ics, ideo­logy, abil­ity, and po­ten­tial skel­et­ons in the closet. Then there is an elu­sive and in­tan­gible X factor, when a se­lec­tion might be wise but some­what un­pre­dict­able. Of course there is also the mat­ter of wheth­er a veep pro­spect would make a good pres­id­ent, but let’s not get macabre here.

A run­ning mate from Ohio or Flor­ida might help carry those states, and in a very close race, a Vir­gini­an might be a plus. A can­did­ate who ap­peals to a whole re­gion has an ob­vi­ous ad­vant­age, but few fit the bill.

In 2012, the turnout rate among Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans ex­ceeded that of whites for the first time. What are the odds of that hap­pen­ing again in 2016? Prob­ably not great, so maybe Sen. Cory Book­er would be a good pick for Hil­lary Clin­ton. Rep. Xavi­er Be­cerra, Hous­ing and Urb­an De­vel­op­ment Sec­ret­ary Ju­li­an Castro, and his broth­er, Rep. Joa­quin Castro, have ob­vi­ous demo­graph­ic ap­peal, but an ar­gu­ment can be made that nobody gets out the Latino vote like Don­ald Trump.

Now con­sider ideo­logy. In Janu­ary, I did a dog-and-pony show with James Carville in the polit­ic­al-sci­ence class he teaches at Tu­lane. As James has been known to say, “I got a 4.0 back at LSU”—adding, “of course that was my blood-al­co­hol level.” Any­way, at one point James asked his stu­dents to raise their hands if they con­sidered them­selves Demo­crats, and roughly half did. He then asked the Demo­crats in the class to raise their hands if they were en­thu­si­ast­ic about a tick­et headed by Hil­lary Clin­ton. One hand went up. Ouch.

He then asked how many of the Demo­crats would be en­thu­si­ast­ic if she were the nom­in­ee and se­lec­ted as her run­ning mate a cer­tain white, male Demo­crat­ic sen­at­or from a swing state that has of­ten been men­tioned as a pos­sible choice (name with­held to avoid em­bar­rass­ing that per­son). The same one hand went up. Then he asked how many of them would be en­thu­si­ast­ic if Clin­ton chose Sen. Eliza­beth War­ren as her run­ning mate. It sure looked to me like every single Demo­crat­ic hand went up. Wow, what a great way to make a point. Clin­ton might have to pivot left to en­sure a strong turnout, par­tic­u­larly among those who backed Bernie Sanders.

The choice of a run­ning mate of­ten says a lot about a pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee’s polit­ic­al cir­cum­stances. Not long after John Mc­Cain’s 2008 loss to Barack Obama, I asked someone who was a top ad­viser to Mc­Cain about the de­cision to pick Sarah Pal­in. The ex­plan­a­tion went something like this: Mc­Cain des­per­ately wanted to pick either Demo­crat­ic Sen. Joe Lieber­man or former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. The ad­visers pushed back hard, ar­guing that both favored abor­tion rights and that the del­eg­ates would burn the con­ven­tion hall to the ground if he picked any­one who wasn’t an­ti­abor­tion.

Mc­Cain was roughly 20 points be­hind with wo­men and run­ning about dead even with men, which trans­lated in­to be­ing be­hind Obama by 10 or 12 points. Pres­id­ent Bush was ra­dio­act­ive, so any­body with a con­nec­tion to the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion was dis­qual­i­fied. It was bad enough that Mc­Cain had been a mem­ber of Con­gress since 1982, and his team didn’t want to com­pound the prob­lem with an­oth­er mem­ber of that in­sti­tu­tion. It would be bet­ter, in fact, to pick someone who had nev­er worked in Wash­ing­ton.

The pick had to be an­ti­abor­tion and really needed to be someone who could chip away at Obama’s enorm­ous lead among wo­men. A pro­cess of elim­in­a­tion nar­rowed the list down to a fairly small num­ber, and out popped Sarah Pal­in. Was it a fourth-and-long situ­ation? Yes, it was a gamble. Stand­ing in that St. Paul con­ven­tion hall that night, Pal­in gave a pretty good speech, and for a day or two it looked like it might have been a de­cent bet. Then the bot­tom fell out.

Some­times in­tan­gible factors are de­cis­ive. In 1992, Al Gore’s name was scarcely men­tioned as a po­ten­tial run­ning mate for Bill Clin­ton. He was Clin­ton’s dop­pel­gang­er in age, race, geo­graphy, and ideo­logy. But the sum was deemed great­er than the parts. So Clin­ton doubled down, the chem­istry between the two men and their wives worked, and it turned out to be a great choice—at least through the elec­tion.

The truth is that run­ning-mate choices are usu­ally sur­prises. Some­times they seemed like a good idea at the time but didn’t work out, oth­er times the pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee was giv­en cred­it for hav­ing a golden touch. If someone asks you to bet on what Hil­lary Clin­ton or Don­ald Trump will do, keep your wal­let in your pock­et.

What We're Following See More »
UN Security Council Condemns N. Korea Launch
39 minutes ago
White House Snubs OGE’s Request for Info on Waivers
3 hours ago

"The Trump administration, in a significant escalation of its clash with the government’s top ethics watchdog, has moved to block an effort to disclose any ethics waivers granted to former lobbyists who now work in the White House or federal agencies." The White House sent a letter to OGE head Walter Shaub, which "challenged his legal authority to demand the information. Dozens of former lobbyists and industry lawyers are working in the Trump administration, which has hired them at a much higher rate than the previous administration. Keeping the waivers confidential would make it impossible to know whether any such officials are violating federal ethics rules or have been given a pass to ignore them."

Turkey Summons U.S. Ambassador
3 hours ago
Court Rules Against NC Voting Districts, Says They Were Racially Motivated
3 hours ago

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that racial considerations pervaded the way North Carolina lawmakers drew congressional maps after the 2010 Census in order to maximize Republicans' advantage. The 5-3 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, was the latest in a series of decisions by the justices against the excessive use of race in redistricting, the decennial process of drawing new district lines for Congress and state legislatures. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the court's four liberal justices in striking down the state's maps."

SCOTUS Rules Against Venue Shopping in Patent Cases
5 hours ago

Writing for an 8-0 Supreme Court on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that patent lawsuits "must be brought in the state where the defendant company is incorporated. ... The ruling likely spells an end to the near-monopoly the federal court in the Eastern District of Texas holds in handling patent cases. Plaintiffs for decades have filed suits in that pro-plaintiff district based on a broader interpretation of venue that made suits possible almost anywhere."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.